On layoffs, very bad attendance, and Iger's legacy being one of disgrace

tirian

tirian

Well-Known Member
GoneViral said:
I've always thought that Eisner's decline stemmed almost entirely from the tragic death of Frank Wells, one of the most underrated Disney execs ever. He kept Eisner in check, and we saw what happened without that voice of reason whispering in his ear.
Click to expand...
Watch “Waking Sleeping Beauty” on Disney+. Eisner’s legacy was a mixed bag for various reasons, not the least of which was Katzenberg’s ineptitude. Of course, he failed upward to co-create Dreamworks SKG.
 
tirian

tirian

Well-Known Member
Sirwalterraleigh said:
You’re not wrong...but the amount of revisionist history with Eisner on boards is insane.

And that will be “ok” only when the same broad brushes are applied to Iger.
Click to expand...
Yes, I suspect those are younger fans* who think Eisner invented TLM, BATB, and TLK and don’t know the company was a shell of itself by 1998. Home video has also convinced fans the cookie-cutter Disney movies post Lion King are “A+ Disney” because Childhood Nostalgia covers a multitude of sins. (Disney has plenty in their A- and B+ tiers, which is where most of that era belongs.)

The same fans also seem ignorant of Pressler’s years at DL, and Phil Holmes’ reign over the MK.

Let’s also not forget the current business strategies started under Eisner’s tenure. Sure, they ramped up considerably under Iger, but it was Eisner who allowed the MBAs to sell Disney widgets before moving on to other companies. There’s a reason so many of us were thrilled when Iger became CEO. We just didn’t know he’d transform the company into the greedy IP conglomerate critics had long accused the company of being, although it never really was until Iger made it that way.

His first decade was great, and then things slid from mixed to awful, resulting in a “Save Disney” campaign that was mostly focused on quality-control issues. I wonder how Roy Jr. would’ve reacted to Iger’s last few years.

*Of course it could be any age. Human memory is terribly fickle.
 
Last edited:
Animaniac93-98

Animaniac93-98

Well-Known Member
tirian said:
Home video has also convinced fans the cookie-cutter Disney movies post Lion King are “A+ Disney” because Childhood Nostalgia covers a multitude of sins. (Disney has plenty in their A- and B+ tiers, which is where most of that era belongs.)
Click to expand...

That's why the people thinking Mulan live-action was going to make $1 billion worldwide confused me.

in 2000, Mulan was not one of Disney's top 14 selling animated home video titles*. Mulan has never been the top Disney Princess, the original movie bombed in China.

It had potential, yes, but there was no guarantee of it being a smash.

*The list was:

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
Pinocchio
Fantasia
Bambi
Cinderella
Peter Pan
Lady and the Tramp
Sleeping Beauty
One Hundred and One Dalmatians
The Jungle Book
The Little Mermaid
Beauty and the Beast
Aladdin
The Lion King
 
brb1006

brb1006

Well-Known Member
tirian said:
Watch “Waking Sleeping Beauty” on Disney+. Eisner’s legacy was a mixed bag for various reasons, not the least of which was Katzenberg’s ineptitude. Of course, he failed upward to co-create Dreamworks SKG.
Click to expand...
Speaking of Waking Sleeping Beauty, the same director also worked on "Howard" (about Howard Ashman). Which will arrive on Disney+ tomorrow, which I been looking forward to watching for years now.
 
Sirwalterraleigh

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
tirian said:
Yes, I suspect those are younger fans* who think Eisner invented TLM, BATB, and TLK and don’t know the company was a shell of itself by 1998. Home video has also convinced fans the cookie-cutter Disney movies post Lion King are “A+ Disney” because Childhood Nostalgia covers a multitude of sins. (Disney has plenty in their A- and B+ tiers, which is where most of that era belongs.)

The same fans also seem ignorant of Pressler’s years at DL, and Phil Holmes’ reign over the MK.

Let’s also not forget the current business strategies started under Eisner’s tenure. Sure, they ramped up considerably under Iger, but it was Eisner who allowed the MBAs to sell Disney widgets before moving on to other companies. There’s a reason so many of us were thrilled when Iger became CEO. We just didn’t know he’d transform the company into the greedy IP conglomerate critics had long accused the company of being, although it never really was until Iger made it that way.

His first decade was great, and then things slid from mixed to awful, resulting in a “Save Disney” campaign that was mostly focused in quality-control issues. I wonder how Roy Jr. would’ve reacted to Iger’s last few years.

*Of course it could be any age. Human memory is terribly fickle.
Click to expand...
Roy E would have likely dusted off his old website on Iger as well...

Though he made a couple of billion off stocks and corporate raiding...and Iger has been good for those types...so maybe not.
 
Sirwalterraleigh

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Animaniac93-98 said:
That's why the people thinking Mulan live-action was going to make $1 billion worldwide confused me.

in 2000, Mulan was not one of Disney's top 14 selling animated home video titles*. Mulan has never been the top Disney Princess, the original movie bombed in China.

It had potential, yes, but there was no guarantee of it being a smash.

*The list was:

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
Pinocchio
Fantasia
Bambi
Cinderella
Peter Pan
Lady and the Tramp
Sleeping Beauty
One Hundred and One Dalmatians
The Jungle Book
The Little Mermaid
Beauty and the Beast
Aladdin
The Lion King
Click to expand...
Mulan was not going to do well at the box office...just my humble O...

I think this release works out in their favor.

But it was yet ANOTHER attempt by Iger to kiss Chinese butt. For the 500th time. I wish we could understand where they think el dorado is located in the Gobi desert??

They partially ruined their most valuable IP chip at least in part chasing a market that isn’t there...
 
Last edited:
GoneViral

GoneViral

Well-Known Member
I follow this stuff for a living, and Mulan had a real chance to be Disney's biggest non-Marvel movie in China. It was probably going to break $1 billion in global revenue thanks to that one market. I think $800 million was its basement.

That's why the studio had no interest in going straight to video until Coronavirus proved implacable.

This topic is one that will never be proved either way now, though. If you think it's more Cinderella than Beauty and the Beast, I totally respect that. I just disagree.

You may not realize that China's film market has matured to the point that Aquaman can earn the equivalent of $300 million.

The only possible sticking point was Liu Yifei's Hong Kong kerfluffle. If Chinese officials didn't make a stink about that, the real unknown here, it could have approached the box office of My People, My Country.

The weird part of this discussion is more that American studios don't get much of a cut from Chinese film box office. When corporations cut those deals, they started 25% and went down from there based on exhibitor splits. So, Disney's revenue stream would have come from renewed interest in Mulan merchandising in China over time. That mitigates the opportunity cost loss quite a bit.
 
Sirwalterraleigh

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
GoneViral said:
I follow this stuff for a living, and Mulan had a real chance to be Disney's biggest non-Marvel movie in China. It was probably going to break $1 billion in global revenue thanks to that one market. I think $800 million was its basement.

That's why the studio had no interest in going straight to video until Coronavirus proved implacable.

This topic is one that will never be proved either way now, though. If you think it's more Cinderella than Beauty and the Beast, I totally respect that. I just disagree.

You may not realize that China's film market has matured to the point that Aquaman can earn the equivalent of $300 million.

The only possible sticking point was Liu Yifei's Hong Kong kerfluffle. If Chinese officials didn't make a stink about that, the real unknown here, it could have approached the box office of My People, My Country.

The weird part of this discussion is more that American studios don't get much of a cut from Chinese film box office. When corporations cut those deals, they started 25% and went down from there based on exhibitor splits. So, Disney's revenue stream would have come from renewed interest in Mulan merchandising in China over time. That mitigates the opportunity cost loss quite a bit.
Click to expand...
I realize all that stuff...

And yet - Disney tent poles don’t have a good history in China outside of marvel and Pixar
 
Brer Oswald

Brer Oswald

Well-Known Member
Phil12 said:
The CEO of TWDC has a difficult job just trying to live up to the reputation of some of the past CEO's. In particular, Walt Disney himself.

Walt was always the front man for his movies, TV shows, Disneyland and Walt Disney World. We knew about these things because good ole Uncle Walt told us all about his plans on his TV shows. And the public loved him!

Of course, that was all pure public relations. Walt was not one bit as he appeared on TV. In reality he was a chain smoker, he drank to excess and he swore like a sailor. He was also a very brutal businessman. But after all, he was in show business. So he hired the best in the business to make him look good. And it worked perfectly because he came off looking great and was able to sell the public most anything. He was a great pitchman!

After Walt died, Roy Disney and the others after didn't have the on camera charisma to effectively sell the Disney product. That is until Eisner came along. Eisner was a rather ruthless guy (just like Walt) but he realized the valve (just like Walt) of being able to pitch the product to the fans. And Eisner did well on camera and used the TV shows to sell product in an effective manner.

Unfortunately, Iger left most of his personality with whomever replaced him as a weatherman. I'll give Bob credit in that he tried to sell the Disney product on camera. But the camera just doesn't like Bob. He comes off as a stiff dupe and a smarmy CEO. He comes off almost as creepy as the Dreamfinder. Iger is just not a guy the fans felt comfortable with nor someone they could trust.

And now we have Bob Chapek. Poor Bob comes across on camera like a wet dishrag. He just can't sell the product. Now let's hope that a brave someone in TWDC confronts Bob and tells him that his on camera personality sucks. Given the proper acting lessons and guidance, they can make him look good or even great!

They did it for Walt and I'm sure they can do it for Bob. I think the difference is that Walt was willing to put on his fake persona for the sake of building his personal fortune (i.e. greed). I'm not sure that Bob is motivated by greed as was Walt.

Here's an example of poor Bob trying to sell the Disney product:

Click to expand...

A couple things. Walt was never CEO. Walt also wasn’t fuelled by greed. I’m not sure where this perception comes from? He was a notorious spender when it came to his company projects, and would mortgage his house, borrow off his life insurance, etc.

No, he wasn’t the perfect Uncle Walt character he created. He was ruthless when you contradicted his vision, he was a sucker for love and attention, and definitely had a bit of an ego when it came to his endeavours. A money man? Not sure where you came to that inclusion. He wasn’t a businessman. He was an entertainer. That’s why he needed Roy so badly.

The rest of your assessment is pretty accurate though.
 
Sirwalterraleigh

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Jrb1979 said:
That's a big part of it. Also a part is many aren't interested in going to theme parks at all. Look at the regional parks. Their attendance is much lower then expected as well. Usually when people can't afford a Disney trip many will opt for their local park and people aren't even doing that. Many are opting for cheaper staycations like going to state parks.
Click to expand...
It’s almost like there’s a constant threat of being infected by something Invisible that can hurt you or everyone you come into contact with?

Why should that limit amusement park visits??
 
Phil12

Phil12

Well-Known Member
Brer Oswald said:
A couple things. Walt was never CEO. Walt also wasn’t fuelled by greed. I’m not sure where this perception comes from? He was a notorious spender when it came to his company projects, and would mortgage his house, borrow off his life insurance, etc.

No, he wasn’t the perfect Uncle Walt character he created. He was ruthless when you contradicted his vision, he was a sucker for love and attention, and definitely had a bit of an ego when it came to his endeavours. A money man? Not sure where you came to that inclusion. He wasn’t a businessman. He was an entertainer. That’s why he needed Roy so badly.

The rest of your assessment is pretty accurate though.
Click to expand...
He and Roy stopped speaking to each other for almost two years due to Walt's greed. Walt was siphoning off money from the studio into WED for himself and his family. The mortgage house story fails to mention that the house in question was his second house, not his primary residence. Borrowing off of life insurance at that time was common. Cheaper to do that then to pull a loan from the bank. I'd explain more but this is way off topic. Here's some reading for you:

How Walt Disney Used WED Enterprises, Inc. as a Private Family Holding Company

WED Enterprises was the private family holding company of Walt Disney, through which he amassed a fortune alongside his shares of Walt Disney Productions.
www.joshuakennon.com www.joshuakennon.com
 
Brer Oswald

Brer Oswald

Well-Known Member
Phil12 said:
He and Roy stopped speaking to each other for almost two years due to Walt's greed. Walt was siphoning off money from the studio into WED for himself and his family. The mortgage house story fails to mention that the house in question was his second house, not his primary residence. Borrowing off of life insurance at that time was common. Cheaper to do that then to pull a loan from the bank. I'd explain more but this is way off topic. Here's some reading for you:

How Walt Disney Used WED Enterprises, Inc. as a Private Family Holding Company

WED Enterprises was the private family holding company of Walt Disney, through which he amassed a fortune alongside his shares of Walt Disney Productions.
www.joshuakennon.com www.joshuakennon.com
Click to expand...
He siphoned off money into WED for Disneyland development. WDP became a public company and he didn’t want the stock holders getting in the way of his extravagant and expensive plans for the parks. He liked having complete control.

He was a control freak. Not a money freak.
 
Tha Realest

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
lindawdw said:
I think it's because the Quarantine of 14 days when guests arrive from various States such as NJ, NY and CT has really affected attendance as this area of the country makes up a large attendance group for WDW. We have a trip scheduled for the end of October but unless they lift the quarantine restriction, we will have to cancel our trip.
Click to expand...
WDW should offer up a quarantine package. Guests arriving from a quarantine state can stay at Art of Animation for $150/night.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom